Burch Colposuspension for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Narrative Review of Contemporary Evidence and Urodynamic Perspectives

Background: Burch colposuspension is a mesh-free retropubic urethropexy for female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Amidst increasing scrutiny of synthetic materials, re-evaluating its long-term efficacy and urodynamic profile is essential.

Objective: To review contemporary evidence regarding the urodynamic mechanisms, clinical efficacy, and safety profile of the Burch procedure.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for studies published up to 2025. We included randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and long-term cohort studies focusing on Burch colposuspension compared to midurethral slings and autologous slings.

Results: Open colposuspension achieves objective cure rates of 68.9%–88% in the first year, with approximately 70% maintaining continence at five years. Long-term studies (mean 13.1 years) show comparable efficacy to midurethral slings (83% vs. 85%). The procedure restores continence by enhancing pressure transmission to the proximal urethra without altering intrinsic sphincter function. While autologous fascial slings offer higher stress-specific success (66% vs. 49%), they carry significantly higher risks of voiding dysfunction requiring reoperation (6.1% vs. 0%). Common complications of Burch include de novo overactive bladder (3%–4.1%) and a higher risk of posterior compartment prolapse (3.3%) compared to slings.

Conclusions: Burch colposuspension remains a gold-standard, mesh-free intervention for women with urethral hypermobility, especially those undergoing concurrent abdominal surgery. It provides a durable, safe alternative to synthetic slings with a lower risk of obstructive voiding dysfunction, though patients should be counseled regarding potential long-term pelvic organ prolapse.

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI), characterized by the involuntary leakage of urine during activities that result in increased intra-abdominal pressure, affects a significant proportion of the global female population and constitutes a substantial urological burden [1,2]. Urodynamic Stress Incontinence (USI), as substantiated by the presence of involuntary urine leakage during cystometry, in conjunction with elevated intra-abdominal pressure in the absence of detrusor contraction, offers objective validation of the clinical diagnosis [3]. The Burch colposuspension, first described in 1961, involves retropubic suspension of the anterior vaginal wall at the level of the bladder neck using permanent sutures tied to Cooper’s ligament (iliopectineal ligament) bilaterally to restore urethral support and continence [4,5].

Burch colposuspension has been the subject of extensive research, and its efficacy has been reported to range from 70% to 85% at 5-8 years post-surgery [4]. This surgical intervention, considered a gold standard in its field, has been historically regarded as a surgical treatment alongside autologous fascial slings. While midurethral mesh slings have become the most commonly performed anti-incontinence procedure, recent concerns about synthetic mesh complications have renewed urological interest in traditional mesh-free procedures with proven long-term efficacy [6]. This systematic review examines contemporary evidence on Burch colposuspension from a urological perspective, emphasizing urodynamic mechanisms, patient selection based on urodynamic parameters, comparative outcomes with other surgical techniques, and the procedure’s current role in the urological armamentarium for female SUI.

This narrative review synthesized evidence to answer the following PICO question: In women with stress urinary incontinence (Population), how does Burch colposuspension (Intervention) compare to midurethral or autologous slings (Comparator) in terms of cure rates and complications (Outcome)?

A search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

Selection criteria included English-language studies evaluating urodynamic outcomes and long-term (>5 years) efficacy. Data extraction focused on objective cure, voiding dysfunction, and mesh-related morbidity.

Protocol registration: This review was not prospectively registered in PROSPERO as it was designed as a comprehensive narrative synthesis of contemporary clinical evidence.

Urodynamic mechanisms and pathophysiology

Mechanism of action: The Burch colposuspension is a surgical intervention that aims to restore continence by repositioning the anatomical structure rather than modifying the intrinsic urethral sphincter function [7]. Urodynamic studies demonstrate that neither anterior vaginal repair nor Burch colposuspension affects the resting variables of the urethral sphincter mechanism. The primary mechanism under investigation involves the enhancement of intra-abdominal pressure transmission to the proximal urethra, which is significantly increased in all recording positions (supine, sitting, and standing) in successfully treated women [7].

Successful Burch colposuspension has been demonstrated to result in significant increases in functional urethral length at rest and during stress, increased maximum urethral closure pressure at stress, and improved pressure transmission ratios [8,9]. Long-term urodynamic follow-up at 5-10 years demonstrates that patients who have experienced successful treatment maintain significantly higher functional urethral length compared to patients with treatment failures, while mean maximum urethral closure pressure may decrease in both groups over time [8,10]. The procedure has been shown to stabilize the urethrovesical junction; however, postural changes in urethral pressure profile characteristic of SUI may persist even after successful restoration of continence [7].

Urodynamic predictors of surgical success: The role of preoperative urodynamic parameters in predicting outcomes following Burch colposuspension surgery has been the subject of extensive investigation. The seminal Value trial demonstrated that preoperative multichannel urodynamic testing is not necessary before planning primary anti-incontinence surgery in women with uncomplicated stress urinary incontinence, defined as postvoid residual urine volume less than 150 mL, negative urinalysis, positive cough stress test, and no pelvic organ prolapse beyond the hymen [3,11]. Basic office evaluation has been shown to be non-inferior to urodynamic testing in this population [11].

Conventional urodynamic metrics, encompassing intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD), detrusor overactivity, and voiding dysfunction, may not accurately predict surgical outcomes as previously postulated [3,12]. The SISTEr trial demonstrated that conventional urodynamic metrics were ineffective in predicting the probability of successful treatment outcomes or the risk of postoperative voiding dysfunction following Burch colposuspension or autologous fascial sling procedures [12]. A trend toward elevated odds of overall success was observed among women with urodynamic stress incontinence, with a twofold increase in odds compared to those without USI on testing. However, this observation did not attain statistical significance (odds ratio [OR] 2.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-5.17). However, the Valsalva leak point pressure (VLPP) levels and the presence of detrusor overactivity did not demonstrate the capacity to predict successful outcomes [12].

Intrinsic sphincter deficiency considerations: The role of Burch colposuspension in treating ISD remains a subject of debate. Traditionally, the definition of this role has been based on the presence of a vulvar pressure profile (VPP) of less than 60 centimeters of water (cm H₂O) or a maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) of less than 20 cm H₂O. A comparison of pubovaginal slings and retropubic colposuspension in patients with ISD reveals that the former is associated with superior effectiveness, yielding outcomes that are comparable to those observed with midurethral slings [13]. However, a subsequent study analyzing success rates in relation to VLPP found that a cutoff of 60 cm H₂O does not represent an absolute contraindication to Burch colposuspension, provided that other parameters such as MUCP and functional urethral length remain within acceptable ranges (success rates 94.55% for VLPP ≥ 60 cm H₂O vs. 91.67% for VLPP < 60 cm H₂O, p > 0.05) [14].

A preoperative urodynamic evaluation may be indicative of lower mean urethral pressure (MUCP) at rest and stress, smaller continence areas, and lower functional urethral lengths at stress. Additionally, lower urethral relaxation indices have been observed to correlate with higher failure rates after Burch colposuspension [8]. The most extensive comparative study specifically enrolled women with urodynamic stress incontinence without ISD, demonstrating excellent long-term outcomes comparable to midurethral slings in this population [15]. The current body of evidence supports the use of Burch colposuspension as the most appropriate surgical intervention for women diagnosed with urethral hypermobility and preserved urethral function. Conversely, patients with significant ISD may derive greater benefit from sling procedures [13,16].

Current urodynamic indications: The European Urogynaecological Association’s position statement indicates that preoperative urodynamic testing in women with uncomplicated, clinically demonstrable SUI does not enhance surgical outcomes. However, urodynamic studies remain a valuable diagnostic tool in cases that present with a combination of symptoms, voiding dysfunction, a history of prior surgery, or concomitant prolapse. These studies facilitate the anticipation of postoperative outcomes and the provision of comprehensive preoperative counseling. Asymptomatic detrusor overactivity, identified using urodynamic testing, has been associated with an increased prevalence of postoperative overactive bladder symptoms. Conversely, pre-existing voiding dysfunction has been shown to predict postoperative voiding difficulties [17].

Surgical principles and modern approaches

Fundamental principles: The Burch colposuspension is a surgical procedure that involves the suspension of the anterior vaginal wall at the level of the bladder neck using permanent sutures tied to the iliopectineal (Cooper’s) ligament on each side to provide support for the urethra [4,5]. The surgical procedure can be performed through three different approaches: open retropubic, laparoscopic, or robotic-assisted. Despite the different approaches, the fundamental anatomical principles remain the same [18,19].

Open retropubic approach: Remains the benchmark for comparison, involving a retropubic incision to access the space of Retzius [20,21].

Minimally invasive (Laparoscopic/robotic approach): These approaches offer enhanced visualization and faster recovery. Systematic reviews indicate that laparoscopic colposuspension yields subjective cure rates comparable to the open technique (RR 1.04) within 18 months, though long-term data beyond 5 years remain more robust for the open approach [19,21-23].

Key safety measure: Regardless of the approach, maintaining appropriate suture tension is critical to prevent urethral kinking.

Intraoperative safety and cystoscopy: The use of routine intraoperative cystoscopy during Burch colposuspension remains a point of clinical consensus despite ongoing debate. Research indicates that lower urinary tract injuries occur in 2.6% to 9% of urethropexy procedures [3,24,25]. Cystoscopy is instrumental in identifying up to 78% of these events, such as transvesical sutures, cystotomies, or ureteral obstructions that might otherwise go undetected [24]. The technique involves retrograde bladder filling with saline or methylene blue to inspect the mucosa, followed by the verification of bilateral ureteral efflux using intravenous dyes. While some studies suggest most injuries can be identified prior to endoscopy [3], routine use is recommended to allow for immediate repair, thereby minimizing postoperative morbidity. The decision should ultimately be tailored to the case complexity and the surgeon’s experience.

Efficacy and objective outcomes

Short-term urological outcomes: A Cochrane systematic review of 55 randomized controlled trials involving 5,417 women reported overall cure rates ranging from 68.9% to 88% for open retropubic colposuspension. Within the first year of treatment, the overall continence rate approximates 85% to 90% [1]. A network meta-analysis of 175 trials assessing 21,598 women ranked open colposuspension with a SUCRA score of 76.7% for cure, placing it third among all surgical interventions after traditional slings (89.4%) and retropubic midurethral slings (89.1%) [26].

Objective cure rates, defined by negative pad test and negative cough stress test results, demonstrate the efficacy of the procedure in restoring urethral competence. Laparoscopic Burch colposuspension has been shown to achieve cure rates of 98% at 6 weeks, 93% at 1 year, and 89% at 2 years, with significant decreases in urethral hypermobility and increases in urethral pressure transmission ratios. The preponderance of patients (81%) voids spontaneously within 24 hours postoperatively [9].

Long-term durability: A comprehensive review of long-term urodynamic and clinical data has been conducted, which demonstrates the sustained efficacy of Burch colposuspension. After a period of five years, approximately 70% of women can expect to maintain an absence of vaginal discharge [1]. A prospective cohort study with 14-year follow-up reported that 68.4% of patients remained free of SUI symptoms, with 73.6% reporting satisfaction according to Patient Global Impression of Improvement scores [27]. The most extensive comparative study to date, with a mean follow-up period of 13.1 years for Burch colposuspension, revealed that 83% of patients reported no ongoing stress urinary incontinence, which is comparable to the 85% continence rate observed with retropubic midurethral slings (p = 0.38) [15].

Long-term urodynamic follow-up at 5-10 years demonstrates cure rates of 81.6% in patients with stable bladders preoperatively and 57% in those with stress incontinence and detrusor instability, though this difference did not reach statistical significance. At the 5-year follow-up, only 52% of patients were completely dry and free of complications, with approximately 30% requiring further incontinence therapy, potentially due to neurogenic factors not corrected by surgery [10].

Comparative clinical synthesis: As summarized in Table 1, the Burch procedure offers a unique balance between long-term durability and low obstructive morbidity. While midurethral slings are often preferred for their minimally invasive nature, the Burch procedure avoids mesh-specific risks like erosion (1.4%–2.1% in slings).

Versus anterior colporrhaphy: Burch colposuspension has been demonstrated to yield superior urological outcomes across all time periods when compared to anterior vaginal repair (RR for incontinence: 0.46 at 1 year, 0.37 at 1-5 years, 0.49 beyond 5 years) [1]. The urodynamic superiority of the procedure is reflected in its more effective enhancement of pressure transmission to the proximal urethra [7].

Versus needle suspension: Colposuspension has been demonstrated to exhibit a conspicuously diminished incontinence rate in comparison to that of needle suspension procedures, both during the initial year (RR 0.66) and in subsequent years (RR 0.56). This observation persists beyond a five-year period, with an even more pronounced decrease in incontinence rates (RR 0.32) [1].

Versus autologous fascial sling: The SISTEr trial, a multicenter randomized trial of 655 women with predominant stress incontinence symptoms, positive stress test, and urethral hypermobility, demonstrated that autologous fascial sling achieved higher stress-specific success rates than Burch colposuspension at 24 months (66% vs. 49%, p < 0.001). The overall success rates, defined as the absence of incontinence on a three-day diary, a negative stress test, self-reported symptoms, and retreatment, were higher for the sling group (47% vs. 38%, p = 0.01) [4]. However, the sling procedure resulted in a significantly higher incidence of postoperative complications, including urinary tract infections, voiding dysfunction, and postoperative urge incontinence. Specifically, 6.1% of patients requiring reoperation for voiding dysfunction were observed in the sling cohort, in contrast to the 0% rate observed in the Burch colposuspension group [2,4]. A recent medium-to-long-term study with a median follow-up period of 5.9 years has confirmed that autologous fascial sling and retropubic tape procedures demonstrate the highest efficacy (62%-64%), with autologous sling having the lowest complication rate (22.6%) [28].

Versus midurethral slings: A comprehensive review of the existing literature, encompassing 22 trials that directly compared Burch colposuspension with suburethral slings, revealed no significant disparities in incontinence rates across all time periods [1]. A systematic review comparing Burch colposuspension to midurethral slings reported overall cure rates of 74% versus 82%, respectively [6]. A large, matched cohort study of women with urodynamic stress incontinence without ISD demonstrated comparable long-term effectiveness (83% vs. 85%, p = 0.38) and patient satisfaction (84.1% vs. 82%, p = 0.88) between Burch colposuspension and retropubic midurethral sling [15]. Subgroup analysis revealed that traditional fascial slings demonstrated superior effectiveness in the medium and long term when compared to open colposuspension (RR 1.35 from 1-5 years, RR 1.19 beyond 5 years) [1].

Burch versus marshall-marchetti-krantz: A paucity of data from two trials suggests that the Burch colposuspension procedure results in lower incontinence rates compared to the Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz urethropexy at the 1-5 year follow-up (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.18-0.76) [1].

Safety profile and urological complications

Perioperative complications: Burch colposuspension demonstrates a favorable perioperative safety profile from a urological perspective. The incidence of bladder or urethral perforation has been documented to range from 1.5% to 2.8%, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the 3.6% to 10.1% observed in cases involving retropubic midurethral slings [6]. A retrospective review of 360 Burch colposuspension procedures revealed bladder injuries in 10 patients, constituting 2.8% of the total sample. Of these, three cases were diagnosed postoperatively, while one patient exhibited unilateral ureteral kinking. As indicated by the findings of Study 30, urinary tract injury, hemorrhage, and blood transfusion manifested at notably elevated rates in female subjects undergoing secondary surgical procedures in comparison to those undergoing primary surgical procedures.

The procedure is meticulously designed to circumvent the potential complications associated with mesh implantation, including but not limited to exposure and erosion, which have been reported in 1.4% to 2.1% of midurethral sling cases [6]. A notable exception is a large series that reported a single patient with a bladder suture during long-term follow-up [15]. The incidence of wound infection has been documented to approximate 7% in cases involving open approaches [6].

Intraoperative complications in the SISTEr trial demonstrated that blood loss and operative time were significantly associated with adverse events (p = 0.0002 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Patients undergoing concomitant surgery exhibited significantly higher rates of serious adverse events (14.2% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.01) and overall adverse events (60.5% vs. 48%, p < 0.01) compared to continence surgery alone [29].

Voiding dysfunction: Postoperative voiding dysfunction is a significant urological consideration. In a particular series, 20 patients (5.6%) experienced urinary retention for a duration exceeding 10 days. Two of these patients required catheterization for 26 and 32 days, respectively [30]. Long-term severe voiding difficulty requiring self-catheterization is a rare occurrence, with a prevalence of 0.3%, which is analogous to the 0.5% incidence of midurethral sling procedures [15]. In a separate series, late voiding difficulties were observed in 3% of patients at 5-year follow-up [10].

The SISTEr trial demonstrated that Burch colposuspension resulted in significantly lower rates of voiding dysfunction requiring reoperation compared to autologous fascial sling (0% vs. 6.1%) [4]. This finding signifies a notable urological benefit of the Burch procedure, as it is associated with a reduced incidence of excessive urethral compression and obstruction when compared to sling procedures.

Urinary tract infections: The incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) varies according to the specific surgical procedure and is contingent upon the postoperative bladder drainage methodologies employed. In the SISTEr trial, the incidence of cystitis was found to be higher in the sling group compared to the Burch group up to six weeks postoperatively, irrespective of the presence of concomitant surgeries (p < 0.01). Intermittent self-catheterization has been demonstrated to result in a 17% increase in cystitis rates in the Burch group and a 23% increase in the sling group [29]. A retrospective series documented urinary tract infections in 29 patients (8.1%) following Burch colposuspension [30].

De novo overactive bladder and detrusor overactivity: De novo overactive bladder symptoms manifest in 3% to 4.1% of patients following Burch colposuspension, exhibiting no statistically significant difference when compared to midurethral slings [15]. Urodynamic studies demonstrate that symptomatic detrusor instability develops in 18% of preoperatively stable bladders, while 67% of unstable bladders become stable postoperatively. However, a subsequent evaluation revealed that only 29% of patients with preoperative unstable bladder exhibited normal lower urinary tract function at long-term follow-up. Irritative bladder symptoms, including urgency, frequency, stranguria, and nocturia, have been identified as a persistent complication following colposuspension. This phenomenon may be attributed to neurogenic factors that are not addressed by surgical interventions [10].

Pelvic organ prolapse: The most significant long-term urological concern associated with Burch colposuspension is the increased risk of pelvic organ prolapse. A large comparative study found that 3.3% of patients required subsequent prolapse surgery after Burch colposuspension versus 1.1% after retropubic midurethral sling (p = 0.01), with 9 of 11 cases requiring posterior compartment repair [15]. The Cochrane review corroborated the hypothesis that pelvic organ prolapse manifests with greater frequency following colposuspension compared to sling procedures or anterior colporrhaphy [1]. In a particular series, an enterocele requiring surgical repair developed in 7% of patients at 5-year follow-up [10].

Ureteral complications: Ureteral obstruction is a rare but serious complication. One series reported undetected ureteral obstruction resulting in renal damage, emphasizing the importance of intraoperative assessment of ureteral patency [10]. Routine cystoscopy, in conjunction with intravenous indigo carmine administration, facilitates the detection of ureteral obstruction, which can be alleviated through the release or repositioning of sutures [24,25].

Comparison with laparoscopic approach: Laparoscopic colposuspension offers potential advantages, including a reduced hospital stay and accelerated recovery. A Cochrane review of 26 trials involving 2,271 women found little difference in subjective cure rates between laparoscopic and open colposuspension within 18 months (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99-1.08) [22]. Laparoscopic approaches have been shown to have a lower risk of perioperative complications (RR 0.67), but potentially higher rates of bladder perforations (RR 1.72), though confidence intervals were wide [22]. The extant body of long-term data, that is, data beyond a period of 18 months, remains limited in terms of its application to laparoscopic techniques.

Clinical applications and current urological role

Patient selection based on urodynamic parameters: Candidates deemed suitable for Burch colposuspension are women exhibiting urodynamic stress incontinence, a condition marked by urethral hypermobility in the absence of substantial intrinsic sphincter deficiency [13,15,16]. Patients with VLPP ≥ 60 cm H₂O, MUCP within normal ranges, and adequate functional urethral length have been shown to demonstrate optimal outcomes [8,14]. Women exhibiting significant inferior sling dysfunction (VLPP < 60 cm H₂O, MUCP < 20 cm H₂O) may obtain enhanced outcomes with pubovaginal slings or midurethral slings. However, VLPP < 60 cm H₂O does not constitute an absolute contraindication if other urodynamic parameters are favorable [13,14].

Preoperative urodynamic testing is not mandatory for women with uncomplicated stress urinary incontinence, defined as a postvoid residual volume of 150 mL, a negative urinalysis, a positive cough stress test, and the absence of prolapse beyond the hymen [3,11]. However, urodynamic studies provide valuable information in cases with mixed symptoms, voiding dysfunction, previous failed surgery, or concomitant prolapse, aiding in patient counseling regarding postoperative outcomes [17].

Primary surgical treatment: The current body of evidence supports the use of Burch colposuspension as an effective primary surgical treatment for female SUI, particularly in specific clinical scenarios. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists acknowledges the comparable efficacy of synthetic midurethral slings to open colposuspension, though the occurrence of voiding dysfunction is more prevalent in the latter [11]. The procedure offers a valuable mesh-free alternative for patients who prefer to avoid synthetic materials or have contraindications to mesh placement.

Concurrent prolapse surgery: Burch colposuspension plays a pivotal role when performed concomitantly with abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. The ACOG guidelines acknowledge that Burch colposuspension during abdominal sacrocolpopexy diminishes the likelihood of postoperative stress urinary incontinence in women without preoperative SUI [11]. The CARE trial demonstrated that adding Burch colposuspension to abdominal sacrocolpopexy reduced stress incontinence rates at 3 months (23.8% vs. 44.1%, p < 0.001) and 24 months (34.3% vs. 49.4%, p = 0.003) [5]. A recent Cochrane review found that adding Burch colposuspension during abdominal prolapse surgery may reduce new-onset SUI rates at two years (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.99), though evidence quality was low [31].

Mesh-free alternative in contemporary practice: In the current era of heightened awareness regarding complications associated with mesh and regulatory scrutiny of synthetic mesh products, Burch colposuspension offers a valuable mesh-free alternative with proven long-term effectiveness [6]. The procedure plays a significant role in the urological armamentarium, particularly for women undergoing concurrent abdominal surgery, those preferring to avoid synthetic materials, patients with previous mesh complications, and women with contraindications to mesh placement [15].

Comparison with other mesh-free options: A comparison of mesh-free surgical options reveals that autologous fascial sling demonstrates higher efficacy than Burch colposuspension (66% vs. 49% stress-specific success at 24 months). However, this procedure is associated with significantly greater morbidity, including voiding dysfunction [4]. Decision analysis modeling indicates that Burch and sling procedures exhibit comparable overall effectiveness (94.8% vs. 95.3%) when accounting for initial and secondary treatments. However, complication rates significantly influence relative effectiveness [32]. Urethral bulking agents offer an office-based alternative, but their efficacy is demonstrated to be lower (26% cure rate), and benefits are not sustained beyond one year [28].

Critical analysis and limitations

Despite its long track record, this review identifies several conflicting findings. The SISTEr trial highlighted that while Burch is safer regarding voiding dysfunction, autologous slings are superior for stress-specific success.

Furthermore, the primary limitation in current literature is the scarcity of head-to-head trials comparing robotic Burch to third-generation midurethral slings. Most long-term evidence (>10 years) stems from open surgery cohorts, which may not fully represent outcomes of modern minimally invasive iterations.

Finally, the “prolapse-inducing” nature of the Burch procedure (3.3% reoperation rate) remains a significant drawback compared to slings (1.1%).

Burch colposuspension has been demonstrated to be a highly efficacious surgical intervention for the management of urodynamic stress incontinence, with documented outcomes that persist for a period exceeding a decade. The SISTEr trial demonstrated superior stress-specific success for autologous slings, with a 66% success rate compared to 49% for the control group. However, Burch colposuspension has been shown to be comparable to synthetic midurethral slings in terms of long-term effectiveness. It offers distinct urological advantages, including the absence of mesh-related complications, lower rates of bladder perforation, and minimal risk of voiding dysfunction requiring reoperation. The procedure achieves continence by enhancing pressure transmission to the proximal urethra via anatomical repositioning, as opposed to sphincteric augmentation, as demonstrated by comprehensive urodynamic studies.

The surgical technique demands a comprehensive understanding of retropubic anatomy and meticulous attention to suture placement, tension, and anatomical landmarks to ensure optimal outcomes and minimize urological complications. Although the efficacy of routine intraoperative cystoscopy is a subject of debate, it has been demonstrated to detect otherwise unrecognized lower urinary tract injuries in a significant proportion of cases. The decision to employ this procedure should be informed by considerations such as the complexity of the surgical intervention and the expertise of the operating surgeon. The efficacy of both open and minimally invasive approaches has been demonstrated, with laparoscopic and robotic techniques offering potential advantages in recovery time while maintaining comparable cure rates.

The selection of patients based on urodynamic parameters has been demonstrated to optimize outcomes. Women with urethral hypermobility and preserved urethral function—that is, normal MUCP and functional urethral length—without significant intrinsic sphincter deficiency are considered ideal candidates. While preoperative urodynamic studies are not mandatory for uncomplicated cases, they provide valuable information for patient counseling and outcome prediction in complex cases with mixed symptoms, voiding dysfunction, or previous failed surgery.

The procedure carries a higher risk of subsequent pelvic organ prolapse surgery, particularly in the posterior compartment (3.3% vs. 1.1% for midurethral slings), which should be incorporated into preoperative counseling. Concomitant obliteration of the cul-de-sac (e.g., McCall culdoplasty) during the Burch procedure is recommended to mitigate the risk of subsequent enterocele or rectocele. This risk must be balanced against the absence of mesh-related complications and lower rates of voiding dysfunction compared to sling procedures.

In the current era of heightened awareness regarding mesh complications, Burch colposuspension offers a valuable mesh-free alternative with proven long-term urological effectiveness. The procedure plays a significant role in the surgical armamentarium, particularly for women undergoing concurrent abdominal surgery, those preferring to avoid synthetic materials, and patients with contraindications to mesh placement.

Future urological research should prioritize the following areas, the identification of specific urodynamic parameters that predict maximal benefit from Burch colposuspension versus alternative procedures, the development of strategies to mitigate prolapse risk, potentially through concurrent posterior compartment support, the evaluation of long-term urodynamic outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approaches beyond five years, the conducting of comparative effectiveness studies with extended follow-up periods exceeding ten years, the standardization of surgical technique across training programs with validated competency assessment tools, and the investigation of the role of Burch colposuspension in the era of mesh-restrictive regulatory environments. A rigorous comparative trial is necessary to evaluate Burch colposuspension against contemporary midurethral sling techniques and autologous fascial slings. This trial should include a comprehensive urodynamic assessment. The results of this trial will further clarify the relative merits of different surgical approaches in the evolving landscape of female pelvic floor urology.

Declaration

Guarantor of submission: The corresponding author is the guarantor of the submission.

Availability of data and materials: Supporting material is available if further analysis is needed.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned, externally peer-reviewed.

1. Lapitan MCM, Cody JD, Mashayekhi A. Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7(7):CD002912. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002912.pub7
2. Lukacz ES, Santiago-Lastra Y, Albo ME, Brubaker L. Urinary incontinence in women: a review. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1592-604. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.12137
3. Tulikangas PK, Weber AM, Larive AB, Walters MD. Intraoperative cystoscopy in conjunction with anti-incontinence surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95(6 Pt 1):794-6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00655-9
4. Albo ME, Richter HE, Brubaker L, Norton P, Kraus SR, Zimmern PE, et al. Burch colposuspension versus fascial sling to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(21):2143-55. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa070416
5. Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Fine P, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Visco AG, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(15):1557-66. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa054208
6. Wu JM. Stress incontinence in women. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(25):2428-36. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmcp1914037
7. van Geelen JM, Theeuwes AG, Eskes TK, Martin CB. The clinical and urodynamic effects of anterior vaginal repair and Burch colposuspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;159(1):137-44. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(88)90509-1
8. Feyereisl J, Dreher E, Haenggi W, Zikmund J, Schneider H. Long-term results after Burch colposuspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171(3):647-52. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(94)90077-9
9. Ross JW. Multichannel urodynamic evaluation of laparoscopic Burch colposuspension for genuine stress incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91(1):55-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00466-3
10. Eriksen BC, Hagen B, Eik-Nes SH, Molne K, Mjølnerød OK, Romslo I. Long-term effectiveness of the Burch colposuspension in female urinary stress incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1990;69(1):45-50. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3109/00016349009021038
11. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 155: Urinary incontinence in women. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(5):e66-81. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/citation/2015/11000/practice_bulletin_no__155__urinary_incontinence_in.51.aspx
12. Nager CW, FitzGerald M, Kraus SR, Chai TC, Zyczynski H, Sirls L, et al. Urodynamic measures do not predict stress continence outcomes after surgery for stress urinary incontinence in selected women. J Urol. 2008;179(4):1470-4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.11.077
13. Hillary CJ, Osman N, Chapple C. Considerations in the modern management of stress urinary incontinence resulting from intrinsic sphincter deficiency. World J Urol. 2015;33(9):1251-6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1599-z
14. Bai SW, Park JH, Kim SK, Park KH. Analysis of the success rates of Burch colposuspension in relation to Valsalva leak-point pressure. J Reprod Med. 2005;50(3):189-92. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15841931/
15. Karmakar D, Dwyer PL, Murray C, Schierlitz L, Dykes N, Zilberlicht A. Long-term effectiveness and safety of open Burch colposuspension vs retropubic midurethral sling for stress urinary incontinence—results from a large comparative study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(6):593.e1-593.e8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.11.043
16. Francis SL, Agrawal A, Azadi A, Ostergard DR, Deveneau NE. Robotic Burch colposuspension: a surgical case and instructional video. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(1):147-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2471-1
17. Ruffolo AF, Tsiapakidou S, Daykan Y, Salvatore S, Athanasiou S, Braga A, et al. European Urogynaecological Association position statement: The role of urodynamics in stress urinary incontinence evaluation and treatment decision. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2024;297:176-81. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.04.024
18. Tappy E, Pan E, Corton M. Robotic Burch colposuspension: anatomical and technical considerations. Int Urogynecol J. 2023;34(7):1653-7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-023-05452-1
19. Hill AJ, Jallad K, Walters MD. Laparoscopic Burch colposuspension using a 3-trocar system: tips and tricks. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(3):344. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.08.816
20. Holroyd-Leduc JM, Straus SE. Management of urinary incontinence in women: scientific review. JAMA. 2004;291(8):986-95. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.8.986
21. Aleksandrov A, Meshulam M, Rabischong B, Botchorishvili R. Laparoscopic TOT-like Burch colposuspension: back to the future? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28(1):24-5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2020.04.018
22. Freites J, Stewart F, Omar MI, Mashayekhi A, Agur WI. Laparoscopic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;12(12):CD002239. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002239.pub4
23. Kent A, Jan H, Shakir F. Technical video: modified laparoscopic colposuspension. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(6):980. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.05.016
24. Stevenson KR, Cholhan HJ, Hartmann DM, Buchsbaum GM, Guzick DS. Lower urinary tract injury during the Burch procedure: is there a role for routine cystoscopy? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181(1):35-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70432-1
25. Gill EJ, Elser DM, Bonidie MJ, Roberts KM, Hurt WG. The routine use of cystoscopy with the Burch procedure. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(2):345-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.116732
26. Imamura M, Hudson J, Wallace SA, MacLennan G, Shimonovich M, Omar MI, et al. Surgical interventions for women with stress urinary incontinence: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2019;365:l1842. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1842
27. Ye Y, Wang Y, Tian W, Zhang Z, Liang S, Song X, et al. Burch colposuspension for stress urinary incontinence: a 14-year prospective follow-up. Sci China Life Sci. 2022;65(8):1667-72. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11427-021-2042-9
28. Offiah I, Carolina Ochoa D, Alvarado JM, Mercer M, Madhu C, Garcia-Perdomo HA, et al. A medium to long-term study comparing stress urinary incontinence procedures. Neurourol Urodyn. 2025. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.70101
29. Chai TC, Albo ME, Richter HE, Norton PA, Dandreo KJ, Kenton K, Lowder JL, et al. Complications in women undergoing Burch colposuspension versus autologous rectus fascial sling for stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2009;181(5):2192-7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.01.019
30. Demirci F, Yucel N, Ozden S, Delikara N, Yalti S, Demirci E. A retrospective review of perioperative complications in 360 patients who had Burch colposuspension. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;39(4):472-5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828x.1999.tb03136.x
31. Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Haya N, Crawford TJ, Brown J, et al. Surgery for women with pelvic organ prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2026;2:CD013108. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd013108
32. Weber AM, Walters MD. Burch procedure compared with sling for stress urinary incontinence: a decision analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96(6):867-73. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(00)01013-9